1951 - When India Lost Its Freedom, Yet Again!

Discussion on anything other than law. Such as current affairs, politics, religion, love, etc.

1951 - When India Lost Its Freedom, Yet Again!

Postby admin » Sun Jan 06, 2013 7:24 pm

Please continue discussion about this article here.

Salman
Being a law student myself and having studied history in graduation, I think it would be wrong to say that India was ruled by "outsiders" every now and then throughout past 1000 years. It is a very subjective term. I still wonder, by what yardstick, especially Indians, judge people as outsider or insider. Even Aryans came from outside, but how many Indians are really ready to admit it. The term outsiders has been invented to denote the Other, as opposed to the insider, the same. It is the part of process by which societies and groups exclude 'Others' whom they want to subordinate or who do not fit into their society. Lawyer/law students should not have such such jingoistic. Otherwise, the rest of the article is absolutely flawless.


Reply|2012-12-28 18:12:33 admin
Thank you for your comment. IMHO, there is a very simple test for outsider/insider. If you attack a people, loot their wealth, and take it to your place, you are an outsider. Plain and simple.


|117.205.144.xxx |2013-01-05 20:41:44 Salman
Seen that way, rulers from Delhi Sultanate or Mughal Dynasty didn't actually indulge in looting or plundering of India's wealth. However, the same could not be said for the Britishers, Nadir Shah et al. Anyway, I don't see any point in being bitter about injustices of the past.
Reply


|2013-01-06 06:35:26 admin
The article makes no claim about who is and who is not an outsider. It merely obliquely refers to the fact that India has been ruled by outsiders, which is true. It is you who raised this irrelevant issue of who is and who is not an outsider. And I am not sure why you brought it up.

Whether delhi sultanate or mughal dynasty is outsider or not can be discussed separately. It has nothing to do with this article.


|117.228.154.xxx |2013-01-06 17:59:43 Parag - Parag
Judiciary at that time, a Kafir cannot submit his testimony in case muslim accused. Two kafir's testimony is equal to one muslim. Case punishable with death sentence no kafir can testify guilt of accused. If any criminal want to save his life from sentence he can, he have to convert himself

And these are few examples.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 39
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 10:05 am

Re: 1951 - When India Lost Its Freedom, Yet Again!

Postby salman » Sat Jan 12, 2013 4:11 pm

Well, it seems you didn't read my comment entirely. I also said in the end that "otherwise, this article is absolutely flawless." I am little appalled by your reaction. My intention was not to criticize the article or the author of the article. I just intended to point out that the opening lines looked little out of place to me as it is a very subjective issue and one should avoid making such judgmental (oblique?) comments. The issue is not about who is outsider or insider. It's just that who are we to make such a judgmental statement in an article which is concerned with a serious legal topic which is in no way related to it. Isn't it irrelevant?
.
It may appear to you that I am making a mountain out of a molehill, but believe me it's not like that. I am a regular visitor of this website. I just wanted to convey that the aforementioned lines are little inappropriate and a distraction, partly because they are opening lines. Probably they would have escaped my attention had they not been opening lines. Instead of reacting in such a way, you should take it sportingly. At least you compelled a sleeper member to comment on the article. I hope my intention is clear to you now.
salman
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2013 3:47 pm

Re: 1951 - When India Lost Its Freedom, Yet Again!

Postby admin » Mon Jan 14, 2013 1:54 am

salman wrote:It may appear to you that I am making a mountain out of a molehill, but believe me it's not like that. I am a regular visitor of this website. I just wanted to convey that the aforementioned lines are little inappropriate and a distraction, partly because they are opening lines. Probably they would have escaped my attention had they not been opening lines. Instead of reacting in such a way, you should take it sportingly. At least you compelled a sleeper member to comment on the article. I hope my intention is clear to you now.


Dear Salman,

Thank you again for writing and glad to know that you are a regular visitor. Your comment is perfectly fine and your criticism of the opening line is also fine. But as the writer of the article, if I accept your viewpoint, I should say so and if I do not accept your viewpoint, am I not allowed to defend my viewpoint?

Anyway, getting back on point.
salman wrote:I am little appalled by your reaction. My intention was not to criticize the article or the author of the article. I just intended to point out that the opening lines looked little out of place to me as it is a very subjective issue and one should avoid making such judgmental (oblique?) comments. The issue is not about who is outsider or insider. It's just that who are we to make such a judgmental statement in an article which is concerned with a serious legal topic which is in no way related to it. Isn't it irrelevant?

The opening line is there because that lays the groundwork for the article. My hypothesis is that India has been ruled by outsiders so easily because of lack of freedom of speech in our society. Lack of freedom of speech weakens the society from inside. I believe that India has been ruled conveniently by restricting freedom of speech and India has been ruled for a substantial period of time by outsiders in the past 1000 yrs. Do you deny that? You are free to disagree with that and also free to state your reasons.

You ask, who are we to make such a judgement?
We are the people of India. We are the people who have been ruled over. We are the people who have been exploited. We are the people who are still ruled by a ruling class that doesn't care about us. I believe that gives us the right to make the judgement.

I am not sure what reaction were you expecting and with which part of my reply were you appalled? My article is public and just the way my article is open to criticism, so is your comment and there the response may not necessarily be to your liking. Again, you are free to disagree and welcome to post your views.

thank you,
Hanumant.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 39
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 10:05 am


Return to General Discussion



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron